Back

Segmentation-Free Pretherapeutic Assessment of BRAF-Status in Pediatric Low-Grade Gliomas

Kudus, K.; Wagner, M.; Sheng, M.; Bennett, J.; Liu, A.; tabori, U.; Hawkins, C.; ertl-wagner, B.; Khalvati, F.

2025-02-03 oncology
10.1101/2025.01.30.25321339 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundBRAF status is crucial for treating pediatric low-grade gliomas (pLGG) and can be assessed non-invasively from segmented tumor regions on MRI using machine learning (ML). However, there are inherent limitations to manual and automated tumor segmentations. PurposeTo assess the performance of automated segmentation algorithms and to develop and assess a segmentation-free ML classification pipeline that identifies BRAF status from whole-brain FLAIR MRI sequences. Materials and MethodsIn this REB-approved retrospective study, molecularly-characterized tumors and whole-brain FLAIR MR images were collected from 455 patients with pLGG treated between 1999 and 2023 at a single tertiary care childrens hospital. We trained and evaluated three medical segmentation models, TransBTS, MedNeXt, and MedicalNet. Next, we developed a model to identify BRAF status from whole-brain FLAIR MRI, without any reliance on manual or automated segmentations. We then implemented a novel pretraining regimen that embedded segmentation knowledge into the whole-brain FLAIR MRI classification model. Finally, we trained and evaluated a baseline model that used manual segmentations as inputs. All ML models were trained and evaluated under a nested-cross validation scheme, and mean performance across all test folds was compared using the corresponding t-test. ResultsThe MedNeXt segmentation model (mean Dice score: 0.555) outperformed both the convolutional neural network (CNN) based MedicalNet (0.516) and the CNN-transformer hybrid TransBTS (0.449) (p <0.05 for all comparisons). The MedNeXt style classification model achieved a one-vs-rest area under the ROC curve of 0.741 using the whole brain FLAIR sequence as an input, without any segmentation knowledge. This was improved to 0.772 through pretraining on the segmentation task, which was not significantly different from the baseline manual segmentation-based model (0.756, p-value: 0.141). ConclusionBRAF status can be assessed non-invasively using ML models based on whole-brain FLAIR sequences. Dependence on inconsistent manual or automated segmentations can be reduced by integrating tumor region information into the model through pretraining.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Neuro-Oncology Advances
24 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
38.0%
2
Neuro-Oncology
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
3
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
4
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
5
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 39%
3.6%
6
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.1%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.1%
8
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
9
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.5%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
11
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
12
Journal of the Neurological Sciences
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
13
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
14
Brain and Behavior
37 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.2%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.2%
16
Neuropathology and Applied Neurobiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
17
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
18
JCO Precision Oncology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
20
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
22
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
NMR in Biomedicine
24 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
24
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
25
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
26
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.6%
27
Radiotherapy and Oncology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%
28
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
29
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
30
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%